3 ms·
I don't know what it is about technical interview-style code puzzles, but I have always been terrible at them. Every time I go through a job hunt, I end up wit
by balloot 13y ago
I don't know what it is about technical interview-style code puzzles, but I have always been terrible at them. Every time I go through a job hunt, I end up with at least one fabulous flameout where I just can't do something that would normally be very simple for me. It sucks. I have fantastic experience, good references, a degree from a top university, but you put me in a room with someone looking over my shoulder as I write code and I just turn into mush often enough that it makes passing a many round technical interview a statistical improbability.
The good news is that more and more companies (and especially the small ones that I like to work for) do the coding sample/test code thing. And every time I get one of those I absolutely crush it. I've never once been denied an offer when asked to write an offline code sample - and the offers have been from a number of the top startups in the game.
What does any of this mean? Well, in the last two companies I worked with I ended up rising to be the top technical person on my team. I've never had any kind of negative review of any sort. And in the last round this happened after I was denied an offer from two different companies because I couldn't code.
So I guess I'm that guy. I've been rejected from Google 3 different times because they keep begging me to interview based off my experience/internal recommendations, and then I interview and their interview/hazing process weeds me out. It would be nice if they woke up and realized that process isn't an effective filter, but I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime there's plenty of companies who will happily hire me after they see me do work that's actually relevant to the job. And when I interview people for my team I steer clear of trying to stump them under intense pressure, and instead ask for a mini project. I guess it doesn't feed the ego quite like breaking someone with a super awesome whiteboard question, but screening candidates more effectively makes up for that.
- brianmcc 13y agoAgreed, surprised this whole aspect isn't discussed much, much more. There's obviously a massive difference between "can code proficiently" and "can code proficiently in an interview situation" and I would guess that a significant amount of even fizz-buzz fails are due to this, let alone complex algorithmic stuff. When you're an interviewer doing many sessions it soon becomes very routine, to the point of tedium. Being an interviewee is on the other hand hugely stressful for a lot of people, and that just isn't conducive to good "on the spot" analytical thinking. And interviewers in their comfort zones completely forget this and don't factor it into performance (done so myself).